Don't u just hate when religious folks try to block science?
-
Jonny Newman wrote: And religion will always be there to oppose changes that may lead to its demise. This is true of anything not just religion. Jonny Newman wrote: It is only because our knowlage has come on in leaps and bounds that we are finally seeing the truths. Truths based on what? What you wish to believe? Jonny Newman wrote: The matter put short is that Religion was fabricated by people who did not understand their world and tried to find a way to explain it. Here I really disagree. I find that many arguments along this line confuse moral right and wrong with technical. Most religions are a basis for moral beliefs. I have never found any contridictions with my religious beliefs and techical beliefs. To give an example, I do not care how GOD created the world and most religious texts do not go into sufficent detail to cause any issues with what we scientifically understand. So no conflict. If I choose to believe this so what on your part. Now one reason I do believe this is when I look at probability theory --> how unlikely the balance of nature randomly came together to allow life to exist. I choose to believe it was guided and not random. Since it was guided it is logical and probable that a GOD exists. You are fully free to not believe this. I am not your judge. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Since it was guided it is logical and probable that a GOD exists. New question. OK maybe something did create the universe. Was it a GOD? What we would see as an extra-terrestrial today would have seemed like a god to people thousands of years ago (ever seen Stargate?). If god revealed himself, would we believe he was still a god, or just an increadably powerful alien? Wake up CPians..... Follow the Green Alien.... :bob:"Bob, a real Alien in a virtual world" Get your free CP wallpaper here or [Paul]
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: You can not "have no religious beliefs". You may believe something or disbelieve or are unsure, all of which are religious beliefs. What he is saying is that he does not follow a religion. I see your point on the definition of a religious belief. Where do religious opinions come in? Wake up CPians..... Follow the Green Alien.... :bob:"Bob, a real Alien in a virtual world" Get your free CP wallpaper here or [Paul]
Jonny Newman wrote: What he is saying is that he does not follow a religion. I agree that was the basis for his comments as I read them. Jonny Newman wrote: Where do religious opinions come in? How I am reading this is the same statement I was intending. Be you choose to call it opinions/beliefs/whatever, you have them. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Jonny Newman wrote: And religion will always be there to oppose changes that may lead to its demise. This is true of anything not just religion. Jonny Newman wrote: It is only because our knowlage has come on in leaps and bounds that we are finally seeing the truths. Truths based on what? What you wish to believe? Jonny Newman wrote: The matter put short is that Religion was fabricated by people who did not understand their world and tried to find a way to explain it. Here I really disagree. I find that many arguments along this line confuse moral right and wrong with technical. Most religions are a basis for moral beliefs. I have never found any contridictions with my religious beliefs and techical beliefs. To give an example, I do not care how GOD created the world and most religious texts do not go into sufficent detail to cause any issues with what we scientifically understand. So no conflict. If I choose to believe this so what on your part. Now one reason I do believe this is when I look at probability theory --> how unlikely the balance of nature randomly came together to allow life to exist. I choose to believe it was guided and not random. Since it was guided it is logical and probable that a GOD exists. You are fully free to not believe this. I am not your judge. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now one reason I do believe this is when I look at probability theory --> how unlikely the balance of nature randomly came together to allow life to exist. I choose to believe it was guided and not random. Since it was guided it is logical and probable that a GOD exists. Look at a probability you can more easily relate to, such as the probability of winning the United States' national lottery (that really big one). Any statistician you talk to will say even entering your local lotery is a waste of time because you stand zero percent chance of winning, let alone a mass lottery - and yet people do still win. Using probabilities as any sort of proof or foundation for any reason or theory without understanding that a probability is just that - how probable something is, not what something is - is foolish. And this works for both sides of any argument, whether it is on religion, over fishing or the source of that leak in your living room. ____________________ David Wulff Neil says: The following message could not be delivered to all recipients: dave i am a homosexual and i am in love with your father
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Since it was guided it is logical and probable that a GOD exists. New question. OK maybe something did create the universe. Was it a GOD? What we would see as an extra-terrestrial today would have seemed like a god to people thousands of years ago (ever seen Stargate?). If god revealed himself, would we believe he was still a god, or just an increadably powerful alien? Wake up CPians..... Follow the Green Alien.... :bob:"Bob, a real Alien in a virtual world" Get your free CP wallpaper here or [Paul]
Jonny Newman wrote: OK maybe something did create the universe. Was it a GOD? I choose to call that creator GOD. It is my choice to do so. Jonny Newman wrote: What we would see as an extra-terrestrial today would have seemed like a god to people thousands of years ago (ever seen Stargate?). If god revealed himself, would we believe he was still a god, or just an increadably powerful alien? Here I have to say this line is pointless in that it is never ending. If a being that initialized the earth was revealed as simply and evolved life form, then no he would not be GOD. But how did he get created? I can always say that I do not care how GOD created the earth, but it was under GOD's authority to have it done, Even if the instrument doing it was clueless that was happing. This is a choice I have made. If you choose to believe it or not does not make any difference to my beliefs or to (hopefully) our desire to continue to learn and work with each other. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Jonny Newman wrote: OK maybe something did create the universe. Was it a GOD? I choose to call that creator GOD. It is my choice to do so. Jonny Newman wrote: What we would see as an extra-terrestrial today would have seemed like a god to people thousands of years ago (ever seen Stargate?). If god revealed himself, would we believe he was still a god, or just an increadably powerful alien? Here I have to say this line is pointless in that it is never ending. If a being that initialized the earth was revealed as simply and evolved life form, then no he would not be GOD. But how did he get created? I can always say that I do not care how GOD created the earth, but it was under GOD's authority to have it done, Even if the instrument doing it was clueless that was happing. This is a choice I have made. If you choose to believe it or not does not make any difference to my beliefs or to (hopefully) our desire to continue to learn and work with each other. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This is a choice I have made. If you choose to believe it or not does not make any difference to my beliefs or to (hopefully) our desire to continue to learn and work with each other. I respect your beliefs even though i oppose them. Another belief of mine is that there can never be one-side to anything philosophical, some people must believe in order for it to be opposed. I also think it will be a sad day when we know everything. Wheres the fun in knowing everything? Wake up CPians..... Follow the Green Alien.... :bob:"Bob, a real Alien in a virtual world" Get your free CP wallpaper here or [Paul]
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now one reason I do believe this is when I look at probability theory --> how unlikely the balance of nature randomly came together to allow life to exist. I choose to believe it was guided and not random. Since it was guided it is logical and probable that a GOD exists. Look at a probability you can more easily relate to, such as the probability of winning the United States' national lottery (that really big one). Any statistician you talk to will say even entering your local lotery is a waste of time because you stand zero percent chance of winning, let alone a mass lottery - and yet people do still win. Using probabilities as any sort of proof or foundation for any reason or theory without understanding that a probability is just that - how probable something is, not what something is - is foolish. And this works for both sides of any argument, whether it is on religion, over fishing or the source of that leak in your living room. ____________________ David Wulff Neil says: The following message could not be delivered to all recipients: dave i am a homosexual and i am in love with your father
David Wulff wrote: Using probabilities as any sort of proof I never said it was proof. David Wulff wrote: or foundation for any reason I find understanding the probability of not winning the lottery as a very good foundation on my choice to not purchase tickets. Many factors may be involved when one makes a choice. I mearly listed one. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This is a choice I have made. If you choose to believe it or not does not make any difference to my beliefs or to (hopefully) our desire to continue to learn and work with each other. I respect your beliefs even though i oppose them. Another belief of mine is that there can never be one-side to anything philosophical, some people must believe in order for it to be opposed. I also think it will be a sad day when we know everything. Wheres the fun in knowing everything? Wake up CPians..... Follow the Green Alien.... :bob:"Bob, a real Alien in a virtual world" Get your free CP wallpaper here or [Paul]
Jonny Newman wrote: I respect your beliefs even though i oppose them. Thank you, I also respect yours and am not intending on forcing mine on you. I also believe that in understanding each others beliefs we can eliminate most of the stupid conflicts between people and learn to live together better than mankind has done so in the past. Jonny Newman wrote: I also think it will be a sad day when we know everything. Wheres the fun in knowing everything? Well we agree on this:) To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Jonny Newman wrote: I respect your beliefs even though i oppose them. Thank you, I also respect yours and am not intending on forcing mine on you. I also believe that in understanding each others beliefs we can eliminate most of the stupid conflicts between people and learn to live together better than mankind has done so in the past. Jonny Newman wrote: I also think it will be a sad day when we know everything. Wheres the fun in knowing everything? Well we agree on this:) To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I also believe that in understanding each others beliefs we can eliminate most of the stupid conflicts between people and learn to live together better than mankind has done so in the past. Yes i agree. However i like a good argument over philosophical topics ;P Jonny Newman wrote: I also think it will be a sad day when we know everything. Doesnt stop us learning though. I dont think we can know everything there is to know. There will always be something new on the horizon (.NET for example :-D ) Wake up CPians..... Follow the Green Alien.... :bob:"Bob, a real Alien in a virtual world" Get your free CP wallpaper here or [Paul]
-
David Wulff wrote: Using probabilities as any sort of proof I never said it was proof. David Wulff wrote: or foundation for any reason I find understanding the probability of not winning the lottery as a very good foundation on my choice to not purchase tickets. Many factors may be involved when one makes a choice. I mearly listed one. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I never said it was proof. I didn't say you had. My input was a general remark for the people who do. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I find understanding the probability of not winning the lottery as a very good foundation on my choice to not purchase tickets. And that is what statistics are all about - good foundations. I don't buy lottery tickets because I can't be bothered with the hassle (to be perfectly honest, winning the lottery would only mess up my carefully planned budget anyway). However, my father playes the lottery and to date has won back about five times what he has paid in since '97. He averages about ten pounds a week in winings on the same five lines, twice a week (that is ten pounds in cost with our system), but around every month or so he will get four numbers, or even as the case has been more than once in the past, five numbers - out of a possible six' - and that is not including the three in a row he frequently gets on multiple lines. I asked him the first time he got five numbers if he was annoyed that he was so close to the £13 million or whatever it was at the time, and he said "no, not at all". ____________________ David Wulff Neil says: The following message could not be delivered to all recipients: dave i am a homosexual and i am in love with your father
-
I am not sure what DDT is, but i think if u just take the time to get yourself informed u'll see that what i suggested is true. Genetics is not some misterious science (like cold fussion). It is very clear what it potentials are. It's experimental applications have already proven that. Get yourself informed, it's better that way, instead of dwelling on past broken dreams.
DDT is a pesticide that was used extensively in the 1950's. People thought that it would eradicate most insect pests and was completely harmless to humans, so much so that they indiscriminately sprayed it over everything and everyone. Another product that people thought was a brilliant thing. Dp you remember Thalidomide? They were wrong. I agree that the potentials of genetics are vast, but a lot of people who are not religous are opposed to GM foods. Maybe they're worried about a repeat of the DDT days. Now I have no problems with science (I love it!) But there is still a thing called ethics. Its these that must be observed. And its these that I am most concerned about.
-
Yup it's like those states in the US where teachers are not allowed to teach Darwin's ideas. :wtf: I mean wtf is wrong with them?? Why hide what is commonly known as the truth.. and the US claims to be a country with freedom of religion.. bah.. imo, lobbies are no good for society... they try to influence laws that should be neutral. :mad:
Cheers,
Marc:beer: Click to see my *real* signature :beer:
Marc Richarme wrote: Yup it's like those states in the US where teachers are not allowed to teach Darwin's ideas. Yep, just like those states that prevent prayers in school. WTF is wrong with them? Why hide what a lot of people believe as the truth?... and the US claims to be a country with freedom of religion.... hmmm.... now does this freedom thing work both ways I wonder?
-
I am not sure what DDT is, but i think if u just take the time to get yourself informed u'll see that what i suggested is true. Genetics is not some misterious science (like cold fussion). It is very clear what it potentials are. It's experimental applications have already proven that. Get yourself informed, it's better that way, instead of dwelling on past broken dreams.
Edd wrote: Genetics is not some misterious (sic) science Yes, it is. It is an incredibly important field of study that is currently in its infancy. We have made wonderful strides in our exploration of its potential, but have only just begun to understand it. Edd wrote: Get yourself informed, it's better that way, instead of dwelling on past broken dreams. I am quite adequately informed, thanks, and daily add to my store of knowledge on this and many other topics. Let's Put The Fun Back In Dysfunctional! - My Darts Team T-shirt
-
Very good point. Obviously science should be able to conjure up whatever creations they like without regard for the moral sentiments of the society those creations will be unleashed into. I agree that we should all set back like mindless, soulless puppets waiting for the next great scientific advance. Science can only do good. I think you need to read Frankenstein again... "Humans: The final chapter in the evolution of rats"
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I think you need to read Frankenstein again... I agree with you post, but remember... Frankenstein was fiction.
Mike Mullikin - We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (~550 BC)
Mike Mullikin wrote: but remember... Frankenstein was fiction. Only because you never saw the proof... ;) Mike Mullikin wrote: We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office Better to have a master bungler in office than a beginner... :rolleyes: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I think you need to read Frankenstein again... I agree with you post, but remember... Frankenstein was fiction.
Mike Mullikin - We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (~550 BC)
-
Onkar Singh wrote: Relegious people are always ignorant about facts Do not confuse ignorance with moral beliefs. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Beliefs (even moral ones) must be based on some actual facts. Otherwise, they are blind beliefs. And for me, those beliefs result in ignorance towards actual facts. If you cannot put in a fact (let alone justify), I won't be interested. Onkar